While listening to Jeff Katz on 910kHzAM KNEW I heard there has been a decision by the 9th Circus court of legislation in favor of three men who had applied to become flight attendants for American Airlines. Apparently they were asked as part of the application process if they were HIV positive. All three said they were not. Through the process of the medical screening the doctors for American Airlines found out these three men were all prescribed to take anti-HIV drugs. Again the men were asked if they were HIV positive. This time they owned up to their lie and were dismissed.
As a result of their dismissal these men turned around and sued American Airlines for discrimination. So, now, not only does justice lose again to activist judges, but we also have three men who admittedly have HIV and are willing to lie during the application process to obtain a job in order to hide that fact. The HIV isn't the problem here. The fact that these men lied about their status on an official application for employment is the issue. The 9th Circuit's decision to force American Airlines to hire these men and to pay recompense for their discriminatory conduct just doesn't make sense. If you or I were to lie during the application process to get a job we'd be turned down without any indication of why, and if the employer found out about the lie after our being hired we'd be dismissed, again without requirement of a reason. These men have abused the fact there are judges in this country who have quite a bit of power and very little in the way of a check on that power. So, now, if I ever get denied a job and I know why I've been denied that job I'll just sue the employer. I know someone will give me what I want, even if what I want isn't right.
Posts
2 comments:
They lied on the application, but the question is not a legal question. A company is not allowed to ask questions that are private, such as medical history, or race. The same would go if you said you were black on a job application, even if you're not. The question is not legal, so the answer has no bearing on whether or not someone gets the job.
First of all, in the airline service industry a medical screening is mandatory before employment eligability can be determined. These men's HIV status was going to come into view regardless of their answer to the question on the application. Second, because of the requirement for a medical screening the question about their medical status is valid and legal. Their lying about their HIV status on the application was the reason for their initial dismisal, not their HIV status. These men lied because of their lack of faith in American Airlines to hire them on merits instead of their medical status. This was a calculated move by these men to abuse a system which caters to lobbyists instead of the people. These men knew if they were to make it look like American Airlines wasn't going to hire them because of their HIV status, regardless of the validity of that statement; if the slightest perception of impropriety can be seen an advocacy group will back up your claim in exchange for a share of the profit from the trial because in these cases the big money companies (American Airlines) always settle and trial lawyers always get big pay checks. No one really cared about their HIV status... They only cared about the impropriety. American Airlines was protecting their interests: Passengers, Investors. If a passenger contracted HIV from a flight attendent who lied about their HIV status on an application American Airlines could be held accountable for that lapse in administrative practices.
Post a Comment